Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas,

You wrote: "How hard can it be to prove one way or another?"

Judging from the number of diametrically opposed views in this thread, I would say that it's very hard to prove one way or another - especially when the protagonists doubt the observations and integrity of the researchers, the integrity of the theorists, and the extent to which the theorists' "...logic is logical...".

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Chris

Reading many papers, most agree with the expansion of the universe.

Do we take this as fact or continue to test and research.

I know the evidence based on redshift and yet I know that redshift can be caused by many different ways and it's the unknown properties of supernova and compact matter that promts me to question the data.

The other point is this.

Why should everything be expanding from mother Earth?

Is there a common error?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

Reading through the links has been quite interesting, thank you. It will take me a few weeks just to go through the papers and the papers written by the Authors.

The energy output of the Universe from 0.1 micron to 1000 micron
http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4164

What Hubble really meant by late and early type: simply more or less complex in appearance
Authors: I. K. Baldry
(Submitted on 31 Aug 2008)

Abstract: It is widely written and believed that Edwin Hubble introduced the terms `early' and `late types' to suggest an evolutionary sequence for galaxies. This is incorrect. Hubble took these terms from spectral classification of stars to signify a sequence related to complexity of appearance, albeit based on images rather than spectra. The temporal connotations of the terms had been abandoned prior to his 1926 paper on classification of galaxies.

The paper
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 0125v1.pdf

2 SEQUENCES IN COMPLEXITY OF APPEARANCE
The temporal meanings of ‘early’ and ‘late’ were questioned for
stellar spectra by the early 1920’s because of, for example, the discovery
of red giants and the suggestion of a nuclear timescale by
Eddington (1919). Stratton (1924) quotes a 1922 International Astronomical
Union report “The terms ... are very convenient. It is
well, however, to emphasize that they denote positions early or late
in the spectral sequence ... without any necessary connection whatever
with an early or late stage of physical evolution.” Responding
to a suggestion that the terms be dropped by Hepburn (1924), presciently
Stratton said “itmay be doubtful whether words so strongly
entrenched in the literature of the subject can now be displaced ...”
In fact they have not been.

 

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas,

I believe that skepticism is a good thing for science. One of the foundations of good science is that every observation and every experimental result must be repeatable. This is so the skeptics can see for themselves if they, too, can make the observation you claim to have made or obtain the experimental result you claim to have obtained. If the (knowledgeable) skeptics in your field of interest can repeat your observation or obtain the same result from your experiment, then they're reassured that your not just "making it up". How those observations and experimental results are interpreted is, of course, subject to debate. First and foremost, however, there must be widespread agreement that the observation or experimental result is real.

In the case of cosmic expansion there have literally been hundreds of observations, repeated by researchers around the world, that form the basis for the commonly accepted belief in the scientific community that the universe is, indeed, expanding. I have no problem with the ongoing debate about the interpretation of these observations so long as both sides cite repeatable observations - preferably observations that have already been repeated many times over by credible researchers.

The one thing I don't accept in this debate is the conspiracy theory that researchers and theorists are "cooking the books'' in order to hoodwink the world into believing a theory that most people don't understand and don't give a hoot about.

In your earlier post you wrote:

"The other point is this.

Why should everything be expanding from mother Earth?

Is there a common error?"

The common error in your question is that "everything" is not expanding from "mother Earth". In cosmic expansion, everything is "expanding" from everything else. More properly, space is expanding and everything in space is just being carried along for the ride. There is probably someone on planet "X" in the Andromeda galaxy who posting this question on a science forum far, far away: Why should everything be expanding from planet "X"?

Chris

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I just got done reading this very extensive article on "Evidence for the Big Bang". But it is very informative, and how it's easy to make misconceptions. It goes into much detail about many of the points we have been debating, and how the Big Bang Theory still applies. Hence the reason I thought it so important to share it with you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions

As I was discussing earlier in regards to Cosmological Redshift, the article clearly points out a decisive definition differentiating it from the Doppler Effect.

Hubble Diagram[/b]":2aijeuwq]
Cosmological redshift is often misleadingly conflated with the phenomenon known as the Doppler Effect. This is the change in wavelength (either for sound or light) that one observes due to relative motion between the observer and the sound/light source. The most common example cited for this effect is the change in pitch as a train approaches and then passes the observer; as the train draws near, the pitch increases, followed by a rapid decrease as the train gets farther away. Since the expansion of the universe seems like some sort of relative motion and we know from the discussion above that we should see redshifted photons, it is tempting to cast the cosmological redshift as just another manifestation of the Doppler Effect. Indeed, when Edwin Hubble first made his measurements of the expansion of the universe, his initial interpretation was in terms of a real, physical motion for the galaxies; hence, the units on Hubble's Constant: kilometers per second per megaparsec.

As we discussed, Hubble did make some errors, however they are clearly noted, accounted for and explained. Since this document IS lengthy, I will address any questions you may have instead of posting multiple quotes. But very worth the read.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello Raven

I have read that link several times and if I did not know better I would not question the evidence.

I hope you also read this link that I posted somewhere before.



Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Jul-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-009-0057-z

Almost all astronomers now believe that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. It turns out that this common belief is completely false. Those models advocating the idea of an expanding universe are ill-founded on observational grounds. This means that the Hubble recession law is really a working hypothesis. One alternative to the Hubble recession law is the tired-light hypothesis originally proposed by Zwicky (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773, <CitationRef CitationID="CR28">1929</CitationRef>). This hypothesis leads to a universe that is an eternal cosmos continually evolving without beginning or end. Such a universe exists in a dynamical state of virial equilibrium. Observational studies of the redshift-magnitude relation for Type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies might provide the best observational test for a tired-light cosmology. The present study shows that the model Hubble diagram for a tired-light cosmology gives good agreement with the supernovae data for redshifts in the range 0<z<2. This observational test of a static cosmology shows that the real universe is not necessarily undergoing expansion nor acceleration.

Now what observations does the BBT and expanding universe have to show us?
Please I know the theory back to front. I want to see evidence through telescopes.

 

[michaelmozina]

harrycostas,

I believe that skepticism is a good thing for science. One of the foundations of good science is that every observation and every experimental result must be repeatable. This is so the skeptics can see for themselves if they, too, can make the observation you claim to have made or obtain the experimental result you claim to have obtained.

Well, that works fine until there is no specific "experiment" that can verify the claim and the claim is the same as the evidence being cited. For instance, someone might claim that inflation causes things to be homogeneously distributed, and then turn right around and then try to claim that the fact the universe "seems' relatively homogeneous is evidence of inflation. This is called a "begging the question" fallacy. Too often, it is an "uncontrolled" observation that is used to attempt to verify the claim.

If the (knowledgeable) skeptics in your field of interest can repeat your observation or obtain the same result from your experiment, then they're reassured that your not just "making it up".

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3648

The problem is related to what you note next:

How those observations and experimental results are interpreted is, of course, subject to debate. First and foremost, however, there must be widespread agreement that the observation or experimental result is real.

As you note, there is a subjective element to how all pure "observations" might be interpreted. Is there really any need for 'dark energy', or can that be explained in terms of EM fields? A real 'experiment' could tell us one way or the other, but that involves actual control mechanisms to isolate "cause/effect" relationships.

In the case of cosmic expansion there have literally been hundreds of observations, repeated by researchers around the world, that form the basis for the commonly accepted belief in the scientific community that the universe is, indeed, expanding.

Even if was assume that redshift is *definitely* related to expansion, that would still not 'settle' all debates related to cause/effect relationships, nor would it resolve disputes like that "Does space really expand' sort of debate that Speedfreek and I were discussing earlier. We (as individuals) might subjectively choose from any number of possible ways to "interpret" the very same data.

 

[harrycostas]

Hello Michael

You have a way with words.

Love your explanation.

This paper is also quite interesting, the ABS is self explaining and reading the papers seems to question the BBT and also the expanding universe. If I have posted it before, I'm sorry, but! its worth reading it over.

Falsification of the Expanding Universe Model
Mar-06
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..822....3A

This is the first of two papers on solving Stephen Weinberg's ``Central Problem of Cosmology'', that is, determining the dynamical state and metric of the universe. Weinberg considered solving this problem to be a prerequisite to understanding the universe.
This paper presents the observations and the logical arguments leading to a falsification of the expanding universe model. In the second paper, the Hubble redshift is derived and the universe is shown to have a Euclidean (flat) metric based on a wave system theory of the universe.
The falsification of the expanding universe model is based on the discovery that the anomalous dimming of type Ia supernovae is absent in the Hubble redshift diagrams of two sets of brightest cluster galaxies (BCG). Since the light from the supernovae and from the BCG traverses the same space, this logically shows that the anomalous dimming must be specific to supernovae. With this as a clue, it was found that the short duration of a supernova light curve and the Hubble redshift of the light resulted in a broadening of the light curve at the observer. Since this broadening spreads the total luminosity over a longer time period, the apparent luminosity is decreased. This new effect accounts quantitatively for the anomalous dimming of supernovae. Also, it is proved theoretically that BCG are not subject to anomalous dimming.
Since the expanding universe model currently predicts a time-dilation light curve broadening due to the expansion of the universe, two light curve broadening effects should occur for supernovae. However, only one light curve broadening effect was observed by Goldhaber in his study of the widths of supernovae light curves. Since Goldhaber's result directly contradicts the prediction of two light curve broadening effects, the expanding universe model is logically falsified.
Finally, because a single light curve broadening effect is consistent with the static universe model, a static universe is hypothesized. The static universe hypothesis is confirmed by Tolman surface brightness tests of the two sets of BCG.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Even if was assume that redshift is *definitely* related to expansion, that would still not 'settle' all debates related to cause/effect relationships, nor would it resolve disputes like that "Does space really expand' sort of debate that Speedfreek and I were discussing earlier. We (as individuals) might subjectively choose from any number of possible ways to "interpret" the very same data.

You can take it even further too. What GR tells us is that, at the cosmological scale, space and time cannot be separated and the only things you can really trust are the invariants. There are many perfectly valid ways to "coordinatize" the global picture, which can lead to different interpretations of the same picture. For instance, how do we establish that it is the gaps between things (at the cosmological scale) that is increasing, rather than everything staying the same distance apart but our rulers are shrinking, over time. Perhaps space is not expanding, but matter is shrinking.

What would be the difference, observationally?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

The expansion of the universe they say is caused by dark matter/dark energy so to speak.

Yet we do not know what it is, scientists say they think they know and some even say they have proven there exitence and yet have a condition that is based on expectations.

How can science work under these conditions.

This is what I mean by ad hoc ideas to make the model work.

There are thousands of papers supporting the expansion of the universe and yet I see images near and far that cluster matter as in clusters of galaxies etc.

Quantum mechanics tells us that matter cannot expand. Not only that, we find that matter can form stable compact Stars such as Neutron stars and quark stars and theoretical Neutrino stars.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0991
Astrophysical Implications of the QCD phase transition

Authors: Jurgen Schaffner-Bielich, Irina Sagert, Matthias Hempel, Giuseppe Pagliara, Tobias Fischer, Friedrich-Karl Thielemann, Anthony Mezzacappa, Matthias Liebendorfer
(Submitted on 5 Mar 2009)

Abstract: The possible role of a first order QCD phase transition at nonvanishing quark chemical potential and temperature for cold neutron stars and for supernovae is delineated. For cold neutron stars, we use the NJL model with nonvanishing color superconducting pairing gaps, which describes the phase transition to the 2SC and the CFL quark matter phases at high baryon densities. We demonstrate that these two phase transitions can both be present in the core of neutron stars and that they lead to the appearance of a third family of solution for compact stars. In particular, a core of CFL quark matter can be present in stable compact star configurations when slightly adjusting the vacuum pressure to the onset of the chiral phase transition from the hadronic model to the NJL model. We show that a strong first order phase transition can have strong impact on the dynamics of core collapse supernovae. If the QCD phase transition sets in shortly after the first bounce, a second outgoing shock wave can be generated which leads to an explosion. The presence of the QCD phase transition can be read off from the neutrino and antineutrino signal of the supernova.

 

[SpeedFreek]

There are thousands of papers supporting the expansion of the universe and yet I see images near and far that cluster matter as in clusters of galaxies etc.

Which, yet again, says nothing except that you do not actually understand the model you are arguing against. Do you think that galaxies wouldn't form into gravitationally bound clusters, in an expanding universe? The key is not the clustering, it is the distance between the clusters.

If high redshift galaxies have larger apparent angular diameters, then the apparent gaps between the clusters of galaxies were smaller. In the past, our view of the heavens would be of larger, closer, clusters of galaxies, with less apparent space between them. Our sky would have been larger looking clusters and less blackness. As time goes on, those clusters become more distant, looking smaller, so there is more apparent space in between them. Smaller looking clusters, more blackness.

This really is a very simple concept.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

You said

Which, yet again, says nothing except that you do not actually understand the model you are arguing against. Do you think that galaxies wouldn't form into gravitationally bound clusters, in an expanding universe? The key is not the clustering, it is the distance between the clusters.

You got it wrong. The key is the clustering.

As for my understanding, in the near future you may get to understand what I know. Until than try to focus on the science and not what people know and do not know.


You say the distance beween the clusters, please explain.

You may be trying to say that the distance is increasing. If that is your understanding than you are in error.

You may have to research a bit on compact matter.

 

[SpeedFreek]

You say the distance beween the clusters, please explain.

I have explained, repeatedly, throughout this thread. I will try again, one last time. We see clusters of galaxies in all directions, so we therefore see clusters of galaxies in opposite directions. The highest redshift galaxies form clusters that were relatively close to us when they emitted that light, as shown by their angular diameter. Two z=7 galaxies on opposite sides of us were only 3.5 GLy away from here at that time, so they were only 7 Gly apart. Lower redshift galaxies form clusters that were further away when they emitted their light. z=1.4 galaxies on opposite sides of us were 5.7 GLy away from here at that time, so they were 10.8 GLy apart. And yet their light is less redshifted than the light from the z=7 galaxies when it reaches us

Explain this using tired light, or any other mechanism for redshift that does not involve an expanding universe!

Now know this - I am not a research scientist, I am simply a science correspondent - I relate the mainstream view of the scientific community in a way that is accessible to the masses. If or when the mainstream model changes, it will change what I relate.

There are quite a few arguments against the Big Bang that have to be resolved, it is true. There are questions I cannot answer using Lambda-CDM concordance. But when people come here an post assertions based on a (to put it politely) incomplete understanding of the current theory, I feel the need to correct their misconceptions, especially when they claim to fully understand the mainstream view.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Harrycostas, as pointed out in the last link I posted, and by several others (but let me have 1 more go at it). Clusters are formed by a series of galaxies being gravity bound. The galaxies merge to form Clusters. While various clusters form, the space between these clusters grow in distance indicating an expansion, weather it be space itself or something else, there is still an increase in distance between clusters. There is no indication of a shrinking universe, but rather indicates a force on the larger scale more dominate then gravity. Yes, the majority of researchers DO agree with this. Do I really need to post a link indicating such?

 

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas,

Perhaps we can begin with how your model of a non-expanding universe explains Olber's Paradox. If you're not familiar with this cosmological conundrum you can find a good explanation on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox.

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

You said

Harrycostas, as pointed out in the last link I posted, and by several others (but let me have 1 more go at it). Clusters are formed by a series of galaxies being gravity bound. The galaxies merge to form Clusters. While various clusters form, the space between these clusters grow in distance indicating an expansion, weather it be space itself or something else, there is still an increase in distance between clusters. There is no indication of a shrinking universe, but rather indicates a force on the larger scale more dominate then gravity. Yes, the majority of researchers DO agree with this. Do I really need to post a link indicating such?

If there is an increase in distance then we should see it.

I would expect some galaxies to be moving away from each other controlled by gravity sinks related to each and not some form of dark matter that we cannot define.

I never said that the universe is shrinking.
As for a force greater than gravity, you need to define this force and not use it as an ad hoc theory to fit the model.
We live in the modern ERA where science evidence overides the MOB.
H

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzz

Hello Chris
Olbers Paradox

An optical solution of Olbers' paradox
Authors: V. Guruprasad
(Submitted on 20 Sep 1999 (v1), last revised 4 May 2001 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Shown is that contrary to common intuition, even an arbitrarily weak attenuating mechanism is sufficient to make the background sky quite dark independently of the size of the universe and the Hubble expansion. Further shown is that such an attenuation already exists in the wave nature of light due to entrapment and diffusion from successive diffractions. This is a fundamentally new mechanism to physics, as illustrated by application to the solar neutrino attenuation, galactic dark matter and gamma ray bursts problems. It not only provides a big bang-like cutoff, but also appears to explain the appearance of primeval, metal-deficient galaxies at high redshifts, without deviating from the Olbers' premise of an infinite universe.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

The following paper is a prime example of how some scientists take the BBT as a fact and all it's relevance.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2005
Expansion of the Universe - Standard Big Bang Model

Authors: Matts Roos
(Submitted on 14 Feb 2008)

Abstract: After a brief introduction to the sixteenth and seventeenth century views of the Universe and the nineteenth century paradox of Olbers, we start the history of the cosmic expansion with Hubble's epochal discovery of the recession velocities of spiral galaxies. By then Einstein's theories of relativity were well known, but no suitable metric was known. Prior to introducing General Relativity we embark on a non-chronological derivation of the Robertson-Walker metric directly from Special Relativity and the Minkowski metric endowed with a Gaussian curvature. This permits the definition of all relativistic distance measures needed in observational astronomy. Only thereafter do we come to General Relativity, and describe some of its consequences: gravitational lensing, black holes, various tests, and the cornerstone of the standard Big Bang model, the Friedmann-Lemaitre equations. Going backwards in time towards Big Bang we first have to trace the thermal history, and then understand the needs for a cosmic inflation and its predictions. The knowledge of the Big Bang model is based notably on observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, large scale structures, and the redshifts of distant supernovae. They tell us that gravitating matter is dominated by a dark and dissipationless component of unknown composition, and that the observable part of the Universe exhibits an accelerated expansion representing a fraction of the energy even larger than gravitating matter.

It is written well and yet we need further understandings.
Now if you research each part of the claim you find conditions and ad hoc ideas that are not based on science but! an unkown.

 

[mstoner89]

I believe in the big bang theory whatsoever

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

You can believe in what ever you want. Thats what you call Religion.

To understand cosmology you need to understand the real working parts based on observations and science explanations. There are many theories and models that are used to explain the many observations and are in dispute with each other, thats the complication.

Yes the BBT has been named as the standard model to work off, this does not make it a fact. Its a hyperthetical model that is not based on observations although it may seem that by redshift and the explanations of the expanding universe.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Since you like quoting papers from arxiv.org harrycostas,

Anisotropy in the Hubble constant as observed in the HST Extragalactic Distance Scale Key Project results...
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703556

This would be a good one for you to study:
The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
I have to quote this line:

Einstein's equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the Eotvos experiment, tests of special relativity, and the gravitational redshift experiment.

There's a good definition on Wikipedia. For some reason this site does not understand the symbols in the link, so just do a google search for it. This might help you out a bit with a more in depth understanding for the experiments that have been utilized and support the BBT.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

Thank you for the links.

I have read them before, But! I will read them again.

Science is not about choosing sides.

I have no sides or claims, just reading and trying to understand.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz
I'm very sorry that I post ABS, but they are words from the horses mouth and reduces the Chinese whisper.
I think Cosmologists have a BIg Problem with Dark Matter and Dark Energy. When we have to invent these terms to make a model work.

On Dark Matter Problem: Pseudomatter--Concept and Applications
Authors: Vladimir S. Mashkevich
(Submitted on 20 Feb 2009)

Abstract: A solution to the dark matter problem is set forth in the framework of reductive semiclassical gravity, i.e., semiclassical gravity involving quantum state reduction. In that theory, the Einstein equation includes the energy-momentum tensor originating from pseudomatter and partially compensating for quantum jumps of the matter energy-momentum tensor. The compensation ensures the continuity of metric and of its first time derivative. Pseudomatter is actualized as pseudodust and perceived as a dark matter. The necessity of compensating for quantum jumps makes pseudomatter, i.e., dark matter of such a form, an indispensable rather than ad hoc element of the theory. Applications: The Schwarzschild solution with pseudomatter, pseudomatter halo, collapse involving pseudomatter, pseudomatter in the FLRW universe.

Introduction
It is commonly known that astrophysics and cosmology are being confronted with the problem
of dark matter [1–6]. In the framework of general relativity, which is a totally classical theory,
the problem is a riddle: dark matter appears to be an entirely arbitrary element—what does
it exist for?
Meanwhile, reductive semiclassical gravity, i.e., semiclassical gravity incorporating quantum
state reduction involves an indispensable element, namely, pseudomatter, which is actualized
as pseudodust and perceived as a dark matter [7].
In reductive semiclassical gravity, the Einstein equation includes the energy-momentum tensor
originating from pseudomatter. That tensor partially compensates for jumps of the matter
energy-momentum tensor resulting from state quantum jumps. The compensation ensures the
continuity of metric and of its first time derivative, which is necessary for the Einstein equation
to be fulfilled. It cannot be too highly stressed that in reductive semiclassical gravity dark
matter in the form of pseudomatter is an indispensable rather than ad hoc element of the
theory.
The idea of introducing a nonmaterial field into the Einstein equation had been advanced
in [8]. The idea was realized in the form of pseudomatter in [9] and further developed in [10,7].
In this paper, the concept of pseudomatter is elaborated in detail.
Some applications of the concept to astrophysics and cosmology are given: the Schwarzschild
solution with a realistic matter state equation due to pseudomatter, pseudomatter halo (an
important result: the velocity v = const), collapse involving pseudomatter, pseudomatter in
the FLRW universe (an essential result: the pseudomatter density ε ∝ 1/R where R is the
radius of the universe).

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

G'day Raven

Thank you for the links.

I have read them before, But! I will read them again.

Science is not about choosing sides.

I have no sides or claims, just reading and trying to understand.

This is quite a statement since all of your posts have consisted of arguements against BBT. Your being contradictory to your own statements.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

You said

This is quite a statement since all of your posts have consisted of arguements against BBT. Your being contradictory to your own statements.

Is it really? Think about it. To be awear is most impostant.

In this forum there is no way in proving what ever model you go for.

The only thing we can do is really and refer to papers written by others and pay them respect for their work.

The bottom line is this, I know that I'm not a smart cookie and I know I need to read more and the more I read I realize how little we know and what we know.

To add to that, I'm dislexic and thats a problem. For this reason its easier to quote ABS that I agree with.